I mean it takes two to tango, I’m not sure what a “unilateral ceasefire” would even mean. Not to mention Hamas and Iran is extremely unhappy with Saudi-Israel normalization, that was why Hamas...
I mean it takes two to tango, I’m not sure what a “unilateral ceasefire” would even mean. Not to mention Hamas and Iran is extremely unhappy with Saudi-Israel normalization, that was why Hamas attacked to begin with.
By unilateral I assume they mean Israel would stop attacking Hamas without preconditions, but realistically Hamas will never stop attacking Israel so long as Hamas and Israel both exist.
By unilateral I assume they mean Israel would stop attacking Hamas without preconditions, but realistically Hamas will never stop attacking Israel so long as Hamas and Israel both exist.
Its pretty much exactly what it says on the tin: one side of the conflict declares a ceasefire; whether or not the other side also ceases hostilities is up to them (you can type 'unilateral...
I mean it takes two to tango, I’m not sure what a “unilateral ceasefire” would even mean.
Its pretty much exactly what it says on the tin: one side of the conflict declares a ceasefire; whether or not the other side also ceases hostilities is up to them (you can type 'unilateral ceasefire' into Wikipedia to get a wide array of examples, including the 2008 Gaza war). In this case, the benefit of Israel declaring a unilateral ceasefire is that Israel isn't seeking to negotiate with Hamas - the ceasefire is a show of good faith towards the Saudis in the hopes of pursuing normalization. Hamas' thoughts on the matter are largely irrelevant, beyond whatever military action they may try in response.
Hamas still has hostages and will no doubt continue attacking Israel, since they haven’t accomplished any of their goals yet. I’m not sure how tenable it is to just promise unilaterally not to...
Hamas still has hostages and will no doubt continue attacking Israel, since they haven’t accomplished any of their goals yet. I’m not sure how tenable it is to just promise unilaterally not to attack them back. If anything, that would embolden Hamas even more, no? Not only would they have space, but high incentive to goad Israel to respond again since they would suffer from Sunni normalization.
Until last month, the war between Iran and Israel was largely fought in the shadows. The Iranians decided to take it out of the shadows, openly attacking Israeli territory directly, from Iranian soil, for the first time in the Islamic Republic’s history. Some observers have argued that Iran’s April 13 drone and missile assault on Israel was a symbolic gesture. Yet given the quantity of drones and missiles fired at Israel and their payloads, Iran clearly meant to inflict serious damage.
Israel seemingly recognized that the best way to deal with the threat Iran and its proxies pose is to work with a coalition. This, too, is without precedent. The idea that Americans, Europeans, and Arabs would come together to help intercept drones and cruise missiles Iran launched against Israel would, in the recent past, have seemed like a fantasy—and, to Israel, undesirable. Israel’s ethos on defense has always been: “We defend ourselves by ourselves.” This has been both a source of pride and a principle—that no one besides Israelis would have to pick up weapons on Israel’s behalf.
But now that Israel faces not only Iran but multiple Iranian proxy groups, the cost of taking on all these fronts by itself is simply becoming too high. This development, as well as the willingness that Arab states showed in April to join Israel to confront the threat Iran and its proxies pose, suggests that a window has opened for the creation of a regional coalition pursuing a common strategy to counter Iran and its proxies.
To take advantage of this opening, however, Israel, the United States, and Arab countries—particularly Saudi Arabia—need to recognize the unique nature of the moment and seize it. A U.S.-brokered breakthrough in a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia would do a great deal to cement this emerging coalition. If the Saudis, whose king is the custodian of Islam’s two holiest sites, made peace with Israel, that would likely transform Israel’s relationship with other Sunni-majority states within and outside the Middle East following suit. U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration, as well as Israeli and Saudi leaders, indicate that they would still like to see such a deal happen soon. But the Biden administration believes that the fighting in Gaza must be paused before negotiations about normalization can proceed.
I mean it takes two to tango, I’m not sure what a “unilateral ceasefire” would even mean. Not to mention Hamas and Iran is extremely unhappy with Saudi-Israel normalization, that was why Hamas attacked to begin with.
By unilateral I assume they mean Israel would stop attacking Hamas without preconditions, but realistically Hamas will never stop attacking Israel so long as Hamas and Israel both exist.
Its pretty much exactly what it says on the tin: one side of the conflict declares a ceasefire; whether or not the other side also ceases hostilities is up to them (you can type 'unilateral ceasefire' into Wikipedia to get a wide array of examples, including the 2008 Gaza war). In this case, the benefit of Israel declaring a unilateral ceasefire is that Israel isn't seeking to negotiate with Hamas - the ceasefire is a show of good faith towards the Saudis in the hopes of pursuing normalization. Hamas' thoughts on the matter are largely irrelevant, beyond whatever military action they may try in response.
Hamas still has hostages and will no doubt continue attacking Israel, since they haven’t accomplished any of their goals yet. I’m not sure how tenable it is to just promise unilaterally not to attack them back. If anything, that would embolden Hamas even more, no? Not only would they have space, but high incentive to goad Israel to respond again since they would suffer from Sunni normalization.